Connect with us

Islamic Jihad News

Just How Powerful Are Those All-Powerful Jews?



According to the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, a forgery by the Czarist secret police, published in 1903, a secret cabal of Jews — rich bankers — control the world. Exactly how they did this was entirely unclear, and how the Protocols managed to be published despite those all-powerful Jews, was never explained. Today those Jewish bankers have been replaced in the minds of crazed antisemites everywhere by “Jewish media magnates.” Just as those rich bankers were claimed to “control the world” but nonetheless were unable to prevent six million of their fellow Jews from being murdered, so the Jews who now “control the world’s media” are strangely unable to prevent a tsunami of antisemitic and anti-Israel content from appearing in both media of the old-fashioned kind, and still more torrentially, in social media.

Kanye West and Kyrie Irving, the addlepated singer and the moronic basketball player, are two celebrities who let us in on their conclusion, that each arrived at after deep thought, that “the Jews” today are “all-powerful.” Kyrie learned this from an antisemitic movie that taught him everything he knows about Jews; Kanye knows it from his own experience in the music business, where practically everyone of importance, he insists, is Jewish, but for some reason all those Jews were happy to help him in his own career, which in the end provided him with a scarcely-believable fortune of $2 billion (a fortune now suddenly much diminished, as sponsors have backed away). And they did this, mind you, despite Kanye’s known admiration for Hitler — in fact, he wanted to call his last album Hitler! but was talked out of it, not on moral but on commercial grounds. More on the myth of “powerful Jews” can be found here: “The Big Lie of Jewish power,” by Farley Weiss, JNS, November 15, 2022:

When controversy erupted over NBA star Kyrie Irving’s endorsement of an antisemitic movie, NBA All Star Charles Barkley called for Irving’s suspension. He also asked why the NBA suspends players for hateful comments about other groups, but not Jews. His fellow NBA All Star Shaquille O’Neal agreed with Barkley. Even though the NBA’s commissioner is Jewish, it took the NBA far too long to suspend Irving. Moreover, it did so only after Irving was given multiple opportunities to apologize, which he would not do.

The Irving controversy came on the heels of Kanye’s antisemitic rants, which prompted several companies to forgo millions of dollars in order to break ties with the musician. Ironically, many have reacted to both controversies by repeating the antisemitic libel that the Jews wield near-omnipotent political power and influence in America and the world at large.

This is an ancient libel, made infamous by the antisemitic forgery “The Protocols of the Elders of Zion.” This book alleged that there is a group of Jewish leaders that controls the actions of numerous nations, even though history has shown that most countries have been at best antagonistic to Jewish interests. At worst, they have been openly murderous.

The UN, the representative body for all the world’s nations, is notoriously anti-Israel. In 2021, its General Assembly passed 14 anti-Israel resolutions compared to four resolutions against other countries. Just one nation out of almost two hundred is singled out for such hatred.

Israel is the only country to which the UN Human Rights Commission devotes a special agenda item — #7 — at every session. Israel gets more attention for its putative misdeeds at the UNHRC than do Russia, China, Pakistan, Iran, and Turkey put together.

Recently, the General Assembly voted 98-17 to take Israel to the International Criminal Court for its conduct of the so-called “occupation” of Palestinian Arab territories, which according to the UN, include eastern Jerusalem, the Western Wall and the Temple Mount. These votes alone prove the extraordinary antisemitic and anti-Israel hatred embraced by much of the world.

Moreover, Jews who are in powerful positions are often unable to protect Jewish interests or find themselves betrayed by non-Jewish rulers.

For example, in the late 1400s, Don Isaac Abarbanel assisted King Ferdinand and Queen Isabella of Spain, yet he was unable to prevent them from expelling Spain’s Jews in 1492. To his credit, Abarbanel left the country with his fellow Jews even though Ferdinand and Isabella asked him to stay. One third of Spain’s Jewish population died during the expulsion.

In a more recent case, in 1939, President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s Jewish Secretary of the Treasury, Henry Morgenthau, was totally unable to persuade Roosevelt to allow the ship St. Louis, carrying 973 Jewish refugees, to disembark in America. Morgenthau also failed to convince Roosevelt to bomb the railroad lines to Auschwitz, which would have impeded the murder of some 10,000 Jews a day.

Shortly after the Holocaust, the nations of the world—including the US.—refused to give arms to the new State of Israel so it could fight off a genocidal attack by five Arab nations. Czechoslovakia was the lone exception. In 1967, Israel faced down another genocidal attack with no allies whatsoever. American Jewish lobbying completely failed to convince President Lyndon Johnson to arm or support Israel.

So much for Jewish power.

Things are not much different today. For example, Jews do have prominent positions in news media. Yet The New York Times, owned by the descendants of the Jewish Sulzberger family, outrageously downplayed the Holocaust and has long been notoriously anti-Israel. It is currently covering up the numerous physical attacks on Jews in Brooklyn. In the same way, there are indeed many Jews who work in Hollywood, but the last major movie portraying Israel in a positive light was shortly after the successful Entebbe raid in 1976.

The New York Times has been owned by the Jewish Sulzberger family for more than a century. But far from being an instrument of “Jewish power,” relentlessly covering the Nazi murders of European Jewry, the Times’ owners were afraid of appearing “too Jewish” by focusing on what the Nazis were doing to the Jews, even though it should have been the biggest story in the paper. During the 1930s and until 1945, the New York Times often paid little attention to the Nazi murder of Jews, and when it did have a story, would place it on the back pages. As Laurel Leff noted in her study, Buried By The Times, The Times consistently placed major stories about the Nazi treatment of European Jews on back pages “by the soap and shoe polish ads.” Leff found that during the period September 1939 to May 1945, very few stories about Jewish victims made the Times front page. The Holocaust and related news made the Times front page just 26 times in those six years. Only six of those stories identified Jews as the primary victims.

Then there was the minimal coverage by the Times of the persecution and murder of Jews. Even the word “Jew” was often avoided on the rare occasions when their plight was reported on. The Sulzbergers didn’t want anyone to think that the paper they owned was “too Jewish,” or engaged in special pleading for Jews. More shocking even than the chronic burying of articles with the word “Jew” in them is how often that word was rubbed out of articles that specifically dealt with the Jewish condition. In his review of Leff’s book, Gal Bekerman wrote that “It’s almost surreal at times. How could you possibly tell the story of the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising without mentioning Jews? But The Times did, describing how ‘500,000 persons .. were herded into less than 7 percent of Warsaw’s buildings,’ and how ‘400,000 persons were deported’ to their deaths at Treblinka.’ As Leff put it, The Times, ‘when it ran front-page stories, described refugees seeking shelter, Frenchmen facing confiscation, or civilians dying in German camps, without making clear the refugees, Frenchmen, and civilians were mostly Jews.”

When we are confronted with the claims of antisemites about “powerful Jews who control the media” and promote “Jewish interests,” we should remind those tempted to believe them that the most “powerful Jews” in the world of media were for a long time the members of the Sulzberger family, and the media they controlled was the most important paper in the world, The New York Times. But so fearful were the Sulzbergers of appearing to be engaged in special pleading for Jews, that they deliberately underreported the Holocaust.

Nor do we see any of the “powerful Jews” in social media today exercising their power on behalf of the victims of antisemitism. The Jewish founder of Facebook (now Meta), Mark Zuckerberg, has not shown any interest in preventing antisemitic posts. His company has the worst record among major social media sites; it has failed to remove 89% of antisemitic posts that have been reported to the company. Why? Is it that Zuckerberg, like the Sulzbergers before him, would prefer not to be too identified with “Jewish causes” – meaning, in this case, that he’s going to tolerate antisemitic content? The founders of Google, Larry Page and Sergey Brin, are both Jewish. But Google, too, has a problem with antisemitic content that is allowed to stand without any attempt to remove it. And when Kamau Bobb, Google’s then “Director of Diversity,” was discovered in a 2007 post to have accused Jews of having an “insatiable appetite for war and killing” he wasn’t fired for such blatant antisemitism, but simply switched to a different job in the company. Thus it is that two of the most important social media companies in the world, Facebook and Google, were founded by Jews who still run those companies, yet both routinely permit antisemitic content.

This month, FBI Director Christopher Wray noted, “A full 63% of religious hate crimes are motivated by antisemitism—targeting a group that makes up just 2.4% of our population.” Yet what has been the reaction to those who incite this violence? Barkley is quite correct that antisemitic comments are treated differently than other hate speech.

For instance, Rep. Rashida Tlaib has faced no consequences for advocating Israel’s destruction. Her fellow Democrats continue to treat her and fellow antisemite Ilhan Omar as honored colleagues rather than shunning them outright. The antisemitic supermodels Bella and Gigi Hadid had no problem finding jobs with Adidas, even though Adidas dropped Ye for his antisemitic comments.

Both Rashida Tlaib and Ilhan Omar have expressed antisemitic and anti-Israel views on social media, especially in their tweets. Tlaib would like to see “Palestine” replace Israel “from the river to the sea.” Neither has suffered any consequences from their fellow Democrats. Omar has even been given the plum position on the House Foreign Relations Committee that she coveted, where she can most fittingly carry on her anti-Israel campaign .

It is quite clear that antisemitism is largely tolerated in the United States and the world in general. There are only consequences when the antisemitism—like Ye’s—is so over the top that it becomes embarrassing to simply do nothing. This is not the case with any other type of hatred. Such tolerance for antisemitism only allows it to spread and puts every American Jew in danger.

A gloomy view. But looking at how the incidence of antisemitic acts in America and Europe has skyrocketed, and how sluggish has been the response of governments, including those in France, the U.K., and Germany, that continue to avoid connecting the obvious dots so as to conclude that the rise in antisemitism has everything to do with the inexorably growing population of Muslims — is it a false one?